Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
Cc: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths
Date: 2002-05-14 01:24:20
Message-ID: 21800.1021339460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
> ... Based on the assumption a DROP SCHEMA statement will also
> be issued.

Doesn't seem very workable for the public schema. I suspect pg_dump
has to special-case public anyway, to some extent, but this doesn't
really get us around the DROP problem for individual objects AFAICS.

I agree that if we issue a drop for the schema there's no need to
drop the individual objects ... but we aren't going to be issuing
any drops for public IMHO ... so we still need a solution that
supports dropping individual objects.

If we assume that schema retargeting is something that should be
done by a pg_restore option, then it'd probably be workable for
pg_restore to modify the qualified DROP commands as it issues them.
The main thing is to keep the explicit schema references out of the
CREATE commands, and that part I think is doable.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-05-14 01:29:54 Re: [HACKERS] Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-05-14 01:08:53 Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths